2016 (10) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration : 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in interpreting the provisions of Section 44 of the I.T. Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule along with provisions of Insurance Act 1938, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999 and regulations thereunder and accordingly allowing adjustment from the 'surplus' worked as per "actuarial valuation" [and as shown by the assessee in Form1] in violation of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of LIC vs CIT 51 ITR 778"? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in interpreting that on account of "legislation by incorporation", 'only' the "u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rplus available in Share Holders Account with the surplus available in Policy Holders Account and then taxing this 'net surplus' arrived at the rates specified u/s. 115B of the Act"? 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that even the assessee insurance company uses the nomenclature expenses "other than those directly related to insurance business" while computing the surplus in the Share Holders Account and treating it as part of Insurance Business"? 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in concluding that transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder's Account and shown a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that negative reserve has an impact of reducing the 'taxable surplus' as per Form1 and therefore corresponding adjustment for "negative reserve" need to be made to arrive at "taxable" surplus?" 3. Re. Question Nos.(1),(4), (6) and (9): (a) With regard to these questions, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue, very fairly states that these questions do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. (b) In view of the above submission, these questions do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question (5): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal decided the issue herein in favour of the Respondent Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....b) The Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features in facts or in law from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) on this issue which would warrant entertaining the present appeal. (c) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Re. Question No.(10): (a) It is agreed position between the parties that the issue arising herein stands concluded in favour of the Respondent Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Apex Court in LIC vs. CIT 51 ITR page 773. (b) In the above view, as the question stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in LIC (supra), the question as....